geckzilla wrote:Ok, science is a broad, broad field of study, and astronomy is still broad, and astrophysics itself is a specialty with specialties, and people tend to stick to one particular specialty and get really good at it. For everything else, they have to rely on others, because there just isn't enough time in one's life to know everything and be good at everything. And how can we tell who to trust on these matters, and who not to trust? Accreditation, work history, personal contacts... any number of things you fail to offer us, HiYo. It's hard to trust you, and we don't have time for you, and you get so worked up that we don't just automatically accept what you have to say. It's really annoying.
I don't mean to offend anyone, and after so many years as a participant here I do feel respect and yes affection towards you all, but I don't want you to trust me .. that's never been my objective .. I've always said I offer ideas only, and plainly I have stated my lack of formal education and have no shame in that, but some of my ideas I strongly believe in so I say yes I strongly believe in my opinion, ideas which I get enthusiastic about, I guess you mistake that for getting 'worked up.' Also, your use of the Royal 'We' puts you into a select group, so that if ONE person in that group expresses disfavour of an idea, perhaps it's natural for the group to follow that leader .. but I don't see that happening in participants here as a group in general, I've had good responses and exchanges with a few people here, and when I adopted the HiYoSilver moniker it was in jest, amplifying my miniscule stature when I corrected a newcomer's opinion of Chris, he/she telling Chris that if Chris really believed what he wrote he may as well believe in a flat earth, that newcomer's opinion seeming to be based on what seemed a tiredness in Chris's statement, an inexactness or omission. So while I see Chris's positions, generally, as not containing enough original thought, I do respect his science in general.
Also, what I've seen is, when I find good support for my ideas, and provide links, they're most often not read, perhaps because as you say, 'we have no time for you,' which I understand, BUT, don't forget that while completely unaware of any potential support for my idea of the expanding anti-gravity nature of Voids, that idea now widely recognized as supportable by mainsteam science, that science proving that Voids are expanding and providing motive power for neighbouring galaxies including our own .. well, I think what is NOT generally recognized by mainsteam science is the POTENTIAL value of renegade ideas, and seemingly under qualified opinions.
How did I come up with the idea for expanding anti-gravity Voids years before, to my knowledge, anyone else? My lack of formal education did not PREVENT me from seeing what I saw, clearly, in illustrations of the universe .. Voids as bubbles .. galaxies lined up on the borders of voids as if they Voids were pushing at the galaxies. I had nothing to prevent me from saying, 'no, you are NOT seeing what you are seeing.' Also, while recognizing that religion is not permitted discussion her, perhaps the Creator of the universe gave me a clear and simple vision .. but I can't say that definitely.
While I came to be offended at being 'booted,' I did come to appreciate the quiet time away for reading and contemplation, knowing eventually that some of my ideas would eventually be supported by mainstream science, even if not in my lifetime. I'm not after fame, but I would like to stir up (not initialize) the spirit of creative thought, that I might contribute to whatever small way to the progression of science, that individuals might see opportunity in free thought, that conversation might be more amiable, etc.
With sincere regards. Bob